Cases 21 - 30 of 111
Arizona, State of et al v. Walsh, et al
as 2:2022cv00213
Plaintiff:
Arizona, State of, Idaho, State of, Indiana, State of and others
Defendant:
Martin J Walsh, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Wage & Hour Division and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. ยง 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Mitchell Taebel v. County of Maricopa, et al
as 21-16919
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MITCHELL TAEBEL
Defendant / Appellee:
COUNTY OF MARICOPA, DOUG DUCEY, AZ Governor, MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, AZ Attorney General and others
Brent Duke v. David Shinn, et al
as 21-16917
Petitioner / Appellant:
BRENT FITZGERALD DUKE
Respondent / Appellee:
DAVID SHINN, Director and MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General
David Getzen v. David Shinn, et al
as 21-16870
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID GETZEN
Defendant / Appellee:
DAVID SHINN, Director, Director at Arizona Dept of Corrections, MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General and BEN ARMSTRONG, Appellee Judge
Kilian Hale v. David Shinn, et al
as 21-16794
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KILIAN GREGOIRE HALE
Defendant / Appellee:
DAVID SHINN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, ADOC Central Office, GLENN PACHECO, Warden of ASPC, Tucson Complex, J. MARTINEZ, Deputy Warden of ASPC, Tucson, Whetstone Unit and others
Paul Isaacson, et al v. Mark Brnovich, et al
as 21-16711
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAUL A. ISAACSON, M.D., on behalf of himself and his patients, ERIC M. REUSS, M.D., M.P.H,; on behalf of himself and his patients, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, INC., Arizona Section and others
Defendant / Appellee:
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General of Arizona, in his official capacity, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, DON HERRINGTON, Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services and others
Defendant:
MICHAEL B. WHITING, County Attorney for Apache County, in his official capacity, BRIAN M. MCINTYRE, County Attorney for Cochise County, in his official capacity, WILLIAM PATRICK RING, County Attorney for Coconino County, in his official capacity and others
Amicus Curiae:
STATE OF MISSOURI, STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OR ARKANSAS, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF KANSAS, STATE OF IDAHO, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, STATE OF MONTANA, STATE OF NEBRASKA, STATE OF OHIO, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE
William Graven v. Mark Brnovich, et al
as 21-16701
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WILLIAM A. GRAVEN
Defendant / Appellee:
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General and UNKNOWN PARTIES, John Doe's I through X and Jane Doe's I through X
Brent Duke v. David Shinn, et al
as 21-16675
Petitioner / Appellant:
BRENT FITZGERALD DUKE
Respondent / Appellee:
DAVID SHINN, Director and MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General
Paul Isaacson, et al v. Mark Brnovich, et al
as 21-16645
Plaintiff / Appellee:
PAUL A. ISAACSON, M.D., on behalf of himself and his patients, ERIC M. REUSS, M.D., M.P.H,; on behalf of himself and his patients, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, INC., Arizona Section and others
Defendant / Appellant:
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General of Arizona, in his official capacity, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, DON HERRINGTON, Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services and others
Defendant:
MICHAEL B. WHITING, County Attorney for Apache County, in his official capacity, BRIAN M. MCINTYRE, County Attorney for Cochise County, in his official capacity, WILLIAM PATRICK RING, County Attorney for Coconino County, in his official capacity and others
Amicus Curiae:
STATE OF MISSOURI, STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OR ARKANSAS, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF KANSAS, STATE OF IDAHO, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, STATE OF MONTANA, STATE OF NEBRASKA, STATE OF OHIO, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE
Eduardo Celaya v. Mark Brnovich, et al
as 21-16485
Petitioner / Appellant:
EDUARDO VASQUEZ CELAYA
Respondent / Appellee:
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General and DAVID SHINN, Director
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
